The opportunities provided by a major Lynn housing development could be lost because of a lack of vision for the area, a heritage group has claimed.
Councillors are due to examine proposals for the final phase of the project in the Lynnsport and Marsh Lane areas next week.
But, ahead of that meeting, the Lynn Civic Society has urged West Norfolk Council to do more to create a “cohesive environment” connecting all the development sites.
In comments published within a borough council planning committee report, the group said: “We are of the view that BCKLWN need to take a firmer hand in ensuring and steering this necessary overall masterplan for the whole Lynnsport site.
“This is an opportunity which is in danger of slipping away – with piecemeal development and no overall vision for the entire area.”
A total of 82 new homes are proposed in the latest phase of the project, which is due to be examined by West Norfolk Council’s planning committee on Monday.
Officials have recommended that the application is approved, subject to legal agreements being completed by early September.
And they rejected the society’s claim of a lack of vision, pointing out that plans for each of the sites brought forward before now had been developed under the same criteria.
They said: “The fact that the sites have come through separately does not alter the fact that they form a comprehensive scheme for the development of the Lynnsport sites.”
The society said it understood the need for new housing in Lynn and insisted it was not critical of every aspect of the project.
But it said it remained opposed to the phased development, adding: “We are of the view that the plan to expand housing provision whilst significantly reducing the available green spaces available at the heart of the King’s Lynn, without providing alternative green infrastructure to compensate those losses, is fundamentally flawed.”
However, planners said the application, and the proposals for the other Lynnsport development lands, had set out a “comprehensive approach to open space provision across the three sites.”
They also dismissed criticism of the standard of building of the homes contained in the development, saying the authority could not seek higher standards that it normally would from any other developer.